Coverage of the recent AIPAC conference naturally gave the lion’s share of attention to President Obama’s speech, in which he did his best to placate the most powerful lobby in Washington. The speech, in itself, was a yawner, in that nothing really new was said: the news value was that the President felt compelled to make it. Far more interesting, in terms of content, however – and far less reported on – was AIPAC director Howard Kohr’s peroration, in which he gave the conference attendees what they came there for: red meat. Reddest of all – an argument against US evenhandedness in managing the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Outlining the principles that ought to govern US-Israeli relations, Kohr said the first is "trust and confidence between the leaders of Israel and the United States." What’s interesting is how he defines this "trust." According to Kohr

"If Israel’s foes come to believe that there is diplomatic daylight between the United States and Israel, they will have every incentive to try to exploit those differences and shun peace with the Jewish state. That is why it is so important that America and Israel work out whatever differences arise between them privately, and when tensions do arise, that the leaders work together to close those gaps."

Translation: The President of United States must never ever criticize Israel in public, no matter what.

This "no criticism" injunction leads naturally to the second of Kohr’s principles governing US-Israeli relations:

"The second principle is for America to play its role as honest broker. And let us be clear: That should not be confused with even-handedness. Part of being an honest broker is being honest. One party in this process is our ally — with whom we share values and strategic interests.

"In a world which is demonstrably on the side of the Palestinians and Arabs — where Israel stands virtually alone — the United States has a special role to play. When the United States is even-handed, Israel is automatically at a disadvantage, tilting the diplomatic playing field overwhelmingly toward the Palestinians and Arabs."

Aside from the illogic of such an argument – isn’t a "broker" supposed to be objective, by definition? – one has to stand back and admire the sheer extremism of this stance. Justice is irrelevant, as is America’s national interest: we must take Israel’s side no matter what. That’s being "honest," which must never be confused with taking an "even-handed" approach.

The rationale for this lopsided worldview is that we live in "a world which is demonstrably on the side of the Palestinians and Arabs, where Israel stands virtually alone."

It’s true that Israel stands virtually alone, and yet one has to ask: why is that? Is the whole world awash in a wave of virulent anti-Semitism, or do the policies of the current Israeli government have something to do with it? Like all extremists, Kohr believes alone-ness imbues his cause (in this case, Israel) with some special virtue: besieged by an uncomprehending, inherently hostile, and downright evil world, the extremist perceives his isolation as a badge of honor.

Kohr can’t permit himself to ask the obvious question of why Israel faces a future of growing isolation, for fear the answer would make his head explode: the widespread recognition that the actions of the Israeli government are immoral and impermissible. In making his appeal for unconditional support of Israel, Kohr wisely avoids making any moral argument and instead invokes our formal relationship with Israel as an "ally," along with some vague talk about shared "values and strategic interests."

Yet there is nothing vague about the growing divergence of American and Israeli strategic interests, a process which started when the Berlin Wall fell and is still playing itself out. The US-Israeli "special relationship" took shape as a consequence of the worldwide face-off between the West and the Soviet bloc. During the cold war era, Israel was taken into the "Free World" camp after the Soviet Union’s initially friendly relationship with the Israelis turned sour and the Kremlin began to tilt toward the Arab states, such as Syria.

When the cold war ended, however, the entire framework of the "special relationship" crumbled, and there was nothing to replace it. Although the Israeli leadership has maintained the 9/11 terrorist attacks meant that Israel and the US must draw closer together – supposedly because we’re facing "the same enemy" – the strategic interests of the US dictate a quite different course. To give unconditional support to the Israelis means, in effect, ceding the entire Arab world to the likes of al-Qaeda, and making mortal enemies of a billion-plus Muslims.

If our strategic interests have diverged, so, also, have our values: Israeli society has undergone a radical change since the cold war era, both culturally and politically. The influx of immigrants, especially from Russia, has transformed what was formerly a European colony, with a strong democratic heritage, into a fundamentalist enclave that looks to an older and decidedly illiberal tradition. With the rise of openly racist demagogues of Avigdor Lieberman‘s ilk, even Israel’s most fervent defenders have to recognize that the change in Israel is not for the better. If present trends continue – if the Arab minority continues to grow, and the repression accelerates alongside this demographic time-bomb – then Israel cannot last much longer as a state that is both Jewish and a liberal democracy in the Western sense.

The irony – and tragedy – is that Kohr invokes our supposedly shared values just as they are vanishing in Israel. Kohr is blind to the growing extremism that dominates Israeli politics because he has become its chief spokesman in the US. The fanatic cannot see himself as others see him, and so what outsiders perceive as arrogance he sees as evidence of strength: what seems to the rest of us like a distorted and one-sided view is, to the extremist, a perfectly reasonable and even generous stance. This is how it is possible to believe that the US must subsidize Israel to the tune of $3 billion a year – and keep silent when our money is spent on illegal "settlements." This is how one comes to equate being an "honest broker" with favoring one side over the other.

Amid some conditional and begrudging praise for the "Arab Spring," Kohr complains that the demonstrations in the streets of Arab cities have taken the focus away from the real problem, the central problem of our times:

"In January and February, we had momentum when it came to Iran. Then the Arab demonstrations began — and the focus shifted. Nations everywhere began dealing with the very legitimate challenges and problems that the turmoil presented, and suddenly the world was not talking about Iran with the same sense of clarity and purpose."

The monomania of the true fanatic brooks no rivals.

For decades, the Israelis have had an easy time of it: their propaganda in the US successfully created the image of an island of prosperity and democracy in a region where both are in short supply. Yet the page is turning on this happy illusion, and the Israelis, as well as their amen corner in the US, are all too aware of this shift in public perception. And make no mistake: for them, public perception is everything. As a settler colony, Israel is totally dependent on the outside world for its survival: a cut-off or even a substantial reduction in that aid would mean the end of the Jewish state in very short order.

The Israeli lobby, reflecting the cultural and political changes in Israel, has become so unbalanced and extreme that its public pronouncements and actions have about them the air of parody. It’s true their political clout remains just as formidable as it ever was, but one can’t help wondering how long they’ll get to enjoy it. As America’s ability to determine the course of events in the Middle East begins to wane, and as our willingness to put up with constant Israeli demands begins to wear thin, the "special relationship" will either take on an entirely new cast, or else give way to open hostility and recriminations on both sides.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

I just want to remind you that Antiwar.com has stood – yes, "virtually alone," as Howard Kohr would put it – against the Israel lobby. When the Lobby started agitating for war against Iraq, we calledthem out: when they ramped up their campaign to get the US to attack Iran, we identified them as the spearhead of the War Party and didn’t hesitate to name AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups as the main danger to peace. For this we’ve been vilified and relentlessly smeared – but that’s the price of speaking truth to power, and we will not be silenced by any fifth column. What could silence us, however, is a lack of support from our readers – those same readers who, over the course of 15 years, have stood by us through thick and thin.

That’s why it’s vitally important that you make your contribution to Antiwar.com today – before we have to begin to make major cutbacks, and perhaps even consider closing down this web site. Because that’s what will happen if our fundraising doesn’t pick up rather quickly.

Zionism, thy name is insanity.
"Kohr can’t permit himself to ask the obvious question of why Israel faces a future of growing isolation, for fear the answer would make his head explode:" That's a good one Mr. Raimondo. Or, Kohr can't permit himself the question as… would make him have to go poopy?

sherban

Excellent article.Israel is drunken by power.How not to be so if Israeli people see congresmen of the only one superpower jumping up and down in rhythm dictated by one who even in Israel is seen as a cheap demagogue.How not to be drunk when whole the world is drag against an enemy which Israel propaganda invented.

Oswaldwasalefty

"In a world which is demonstrably on the side of the Palestinians and Arabs — where Israel stands virtually alone — the United States has a special role to play…."

As in providing all the weapons Israel needs to be as vulgar as it can get away with being. It is very true that Israel stands virtually alone in the world in defending its occupation of Palestine. But it doesn't really matter all that much, as long it keeps getting all the financial and military assistance it can squeeze out of Washington. Without it, Israel's occupation of Palestine would last about as long as Saigon did without Washington's vital life support.

Phil Giraldi

The suggestion that Israel was somehow a strategic asset to the United States during the cold war is a myth that was at one time propogated by the Israel lobby to justify the massive amounts of aid Tel Aviv received. Israel has never performed as a surrogate for the "free world" in its conflict with communism. The so-called "special relationship" derives completely from the effective action of a domestic lobby, not from any engagement of Israel in any US defensive strategy.

james

The parasites sold tghe secrets stolen by thier Pollard traitor to China and Russia. Not only they were not a strategic partner, they were an active enemy.

musings

That is merely an instance of the maxim that nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Any nation which pretends to be your "friend" is there to get something. Next decades it will be China who will be the buddy of Israel, if not of the US (we'll see). At the present moment, Israel probably perceives the US as a counter force to Mideast rivals and outright enemies. Should we become unwilling or unable or too collapsed as an economy to fulfill that function, some other ally will be found. It could even be Iran.

I take your point about India. But I would imagine that the more secular elements in Israel are already aligning with China, especially in the building of "great" new cities on the general idea of taming the wilderness, mastering the forces of nature. This retro Stalinism would suit both the present day Chinese and the Israelis, I think.

ML3

there are secular elements in Israel?
If China doesn't see that Israel will be nothing much more than a boil on their behind, (much like it is with America) then I may have severely underestimated them.

avatar singh

another freind of israle in india.
Manmohan is a facilitator of scamsters & fraudsters. That he personally does not indulge in corruption is immaterial since he learnt a lesson long ago that his foray into politics gained momentum through his quality of 'strategic silence' and as a corporate scam facilitator. As long as he runs along this narrow niche without opening his mouth too wide, he believes he is safe.

Another factor is that he doesn't feel he is accountable to the public of India. A key pointer to this is the number of press conference he has held in his 7 years of holding the job. Maybe 1 or 2 at max. He isn't answerable to the Indian public. Compare this with the monthly press conferences by a Chidambaram or a Pranab. They too are corporate facilitators no doubt, but still feel answerable to the Indian public since they came through the electoral route. Laloo used to hold a media briefing every week. Manmohan is more in the autocratic mould of TSPA jernails. They just need to meet & make themselves accountable to visiting US politicians and generals.
may 9th , 2007.

"The global banking cartel, centered at the IMF, World Bank and Federal Reserve, have paid off politicians and dictators the world over — from Washington to Greece to Egypt. In country after country, they have looted national economies at the expense of local populations, consolidating wealth in unprecedented fashion – the top economic one-tenth of one percent is currently holding over $40 trillion in investible wealth, not counting an equally significant amount of wealth hidden in offshore accounts.MANBMNO9HAN SINGH IS THAT MAN SECONDED FROM WORLD BANK TO IMPERISH INDIA And sell idnia cheap to anglosaxon race.

IMF imperial operations designed to extract wealth and suppress populations have been ongoing for decades"

This ( rejected thrice by the public in general election) prime minister(installed at american behest) manmaohan singh is trying to enter parliament again through vack door-he filled nomination through assam with help of sonai gandhi congress(of whoioch he is not a leader or person of any singificance).
such is the democracy we live in.
i thought democracy meansd people electing the party and primeminister to be elected through that elelctable persons.
but as for american definigitn of democracy like in stooge s in afggansitana nd iraq we have an americana tooge who doe snot need to boyther wabout indian opinion because he has not been s-chosen by the indian people for the post but isntalled by a foreing country to make idnia run for foreing.es nbenefit.

james

A very big Y A W N for your irrelevanyt post. Still you never answered me, do they employ Sikhs at Megaphone?

Geo1671

"…..then Israel cannot last much longer" –that what should put the Jesus fear into most USA/Canada citizens– the newly arriving Yisrael settler Xrussians .

MvGuy

It is always amusing to hear the spokespersons for our No.1 Welfare Queen bloviating adnausium… Oh Yes, special relationship, we pay they get…..

3 billion a year…??? Closer to 200 billion….. How many of America's war woes spring from the well spring of the Israeli sense of entitlement to take anything they want, kill anyone they don't like…?? I think the answer is that ALL of the current wars trace to the conceit of Israeli welfare exceptionalism.. "The world is OURS to take"….. and you folks are but G-ds servants to enable her profligate ways…

What America and the world need is an Israel that lives in peace amicably within it's means and it's UN mandated borders that were themselves a tremendous theft and incalculable injustice to the people living there in 1948…. No, Jonathan Pollard your national hero, was NOT an actor of an ally… Selling American nuclear secrets to the USSR was NOT an act of an ally… Israel needs to abandon it's sui generis mindset and get real and honest with ITSELF for itself more than for us…

musings

Got news for you – the Russians are already here. They made a pit stop in Israel before emigrating to the US. Even Russians are not too keen on living there, if they can get jobs in the US in the high tech industries. Ethnicity rather than religion allowed their emigration in the first place. During the Refusenik period, American synagogues took up their cause. What caused the Soviets to allow them to emigrate to Israel?

Moving on, you'd think that if Israel is moving to a lack human rights for Jews within its borders, then there would be an outcry. I'm not sure I'm hearing it. But then this might be a case of "pas devant les domestiques" in which nothing ill can be said amongst the family in front of the servants (or the children). Would this affect lobby support? I doubt it.

One must look at the statement insisting that the US not criticize Israel, because somehow the Palestinians would get word of it. This does not say that the US is family. It is not. The attitude towards most Americans who are not urban sophisticates is actually distrustful. The actual fear is not of Palestinians acting on US wobbliness. That is what was said, but that is not what is really meant. It does of course invoke the idea that survival is at stake, and that it will be on our heads if the Palestinians get too uppity and make trouble. Think about this and juxtapose it with the history of civil rights in the US and you see that it is an argument, which, had it been used by the Deep South would have met with defiance. White power would have been shaken by showing any daylight between the North and those white leaders in the South where the black population was the majority and growing.

I suppose the wild card here is religion and reverence and the sense that Israel is sacred, so that no matter who is in charge in the Jewish state, it is because of some divine right. Therefore, do not let too much light in upon the magic (as was said of the English monarchy). In the formulations of many even American Jews (the ones I can think of are those who came here as refugees and who are still not sure, even as citizens that they will be allowed to stay), Israel is insurance against the evil day in which persecutions begin again somewhere in the world, against Jews. Even in America.

Therefore, something sacred is at stake, and people do not want to look too hard. Because the Cold War has passed, it does not mean that the need has ended for that sacred trust, from the point of view of AIPAC supporters. Since it is based on deep and haunting fears, it fosters attitudes which are hard to shake. How far will it go to secure US cooperation? Don't ask.

musings

Just from a political standpoint, pure electoral politics, you could do much better (because it would not involve the leap of compassion for our unfortunate people in America, a leap so many are loathe to make): juxtapose the speech a day or two later of Obama in a Parliament of both houses, the Commons and Lords, in which he raised issues of the special relationship Britain and US have had, as well as shared sacrifice in the Mideast. Did he get an "Amen" – not on your crumpet. He got polite silence until the very end, when cheers erupted as he praised England and America for allowing social mobility to the sons of immigrants like himself, the grandson of a Kenyan cook for the British Army, now speaking to the equivalent of the American Congress in a rare honor shared by the Pope, the Queen and perhaps one other US President (if that).

They held off clapping out of dignity, can you beat that? They have a dignity to their own office, and a loyalty to their own constituency. Our Congress is up for anything Israel throws at us. They are also both afraid of and beholden to wealthy religiously motivated contributors and Zionists. It isn't that they want what is best for Israel. It's that they don't want to rile whoever is in power in Israel. They aren't polite or even enthusiastic, they are going through the motions for show. And no one is fooled.

Meanwhile, yes, there are disasters in the US and crumbling infrastructure. And our debt is mounting. But who in Congress cares much about that?

avatar singh

that is because the english know that they own the usa so far as us polkciy in economic, finance. miltary and foreing affiars is concerend. theenglish andnot americans own that agenda belive it not at yur peril!

avatar singh

directed from London, by Prince of Wales Edward Albert, for clearing the way for "A New Seven Years War" on the European continent, through a series of measures, including the ouster of Germany's Chancellor Bismarck, the assassination of France's President Sadi Carnot, the Dreyfus case, the British launching of Japan into wars against China, and the London-steered assassination of U.S. President William McKinley. The McKinley assassination had the crucial function of shifting control of the U.S. Presidency from the U.S. traditional orientation of friendship toward both Bismarck's Germany and Russia, by putting the U.S. Presidency in the hands of a dutiful nephew of a Confederate spy, Theodore Roosevelt, and, a bit later, a fervent champion of the Ku Klux Klan, London's asset Woodrow Wilson. It was only with the election of President Franklin Roosevelt, that the U.S. Presidency fell again into the hands of a true U.S. patriot, as the death of Franklin Roosevelt put the Presidency back into the hands of a Wall Street tool and Churchill accomplice, Harry S Truman.”

An Anglophile to the core, ku kulx klan stooge Wilson didn't care about the fate of the Russians. His concern was in keeping German forces split along two fronts. The payoff worked: Russia's provisional prime minister Aleksandr Kerensky kept the Russians involved in the war.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected to the presidency chiefly on the strength of a slogan: "He kept us out of war." By 1917, the peacenik prez was leading the charge against Germany, jailing antiwar activists, and exhorting Americans to fight a "war to end all wars." In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the voters: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Behind the scenes, however, he was maneuvering to do just that – and by the end of 1941, we were fighting a two-front war, embracing "Uncle" Joe Stalin as a fellow "anti-fascist," and planning the internment of the Japanese-American population.

avatar singh

As historian Carroll Quigley explained, in 1891, three British elites met with the intent to create a secret society. The three men were Cecil Rhodes, William T. Stead, a prominent journalist of the day, and Reginald Baliol Brett, a "friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V." Within this secret society, "real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three.’ The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner."[5]

In 1901, Rhodes chose Milner as his successor within the society, of which the purpose was:

The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor, and enterprise… [with] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.[6]

Essentially, it outlined a British-led cosmopolitical world order, one global system of governance under British hegemony. Among key players within this group were the Rothschilds and other leading banking interests.[7]

The creation of the Federal Reserve in the United States in 1913, cemented the connection between European and American banking interests, as the Fed created a very distinct alliance between New York and London bankers.[8]

charles caruso

The Zionists should build more settlements — on the Jersey Shore — cuz thats where they're gonna
end up.

avatar singh

when war criminbal tony blair ,the very personification of evil,came over to us congress and was given standing ovation then EL SASHAMED?is that war crimianl still allowed to exist?where is so called cour of international justice in hague?

Professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977), the noted Georgetown University historian, completed the writing of The Anglo-American Establishment sometime during the late 1940s. Yet the book was never published until 1981, four years after the author's death. Since the publication was delayed for more than 30 years, it is not at all inappropriate to publish a review of this important work 26 years after its first publication. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a more useful moment to review this invaluable account of the British oligarchy's assault on the United States.

Since the inauguration of George Bush and Dick Cheney in January 2001, the United States has been under relentless attack from within. Many a sage Bush-Cheney critic has observed that the current Administration has done more damage to the United States than any foreign enemy could ever inflict. From the Iraq War, to the looming preemptive attack on Iran, to the collapse of the physical economy, to the disintegration of conditions of life for the vast majority of the lower 80% income brackets, and the assault on Constitutional rights, the Bush-Cheney Administration has successfully turned most of the world against the United States, and turned millions of Americans against their own elected government—and against the very idea of government acting on behalf of the general welfare.

Yet few critics, with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche, have raised the specter of a foreign hand behind the Bush-Cheney wrecking operations. This is largely explained by the fact that the vast majority of Americans, including within the political class, have lost a true sense of history. They perceive the consequences of the government's actions from the more limited standpoint of relatively near-term cause and effect, or from the vantage point of a specialist's limited historical lens. Moreover, they all generally accept the false notion that the British hand in world affairs has been vastly reduced, and that the impulse towards empire has been abandoned or suppressed, due to England's "diminished" condition. One need only read the inserted special report in the Feb. 3, 2007 edition of the Economist to recognize that the City of London is now celebrating "another British imperial moment," centered around the successful promulgation of yet another devastating myth: that globalization is an irreversible, driving force in world economic and political affairs.

avatar singh

british media-bye word of corruption and lairs.

both BBc and guardian are lair evil prapaganda machine

January 11, 2011
Redacting Corruption
The Guardian's Political Censorship of Wikileaks

By ISRAEL SHAMIR

Although we are treated to daily accounts of how the net tightens around Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, the contents of the US embassy cables have been doled out to us in spoonfuls. To add insult to injury, it is now clear that The Guardian edits and distorts the cables in order to protect their readers from unflattering remarks about how their corporations behave overseas. The Guardian has deliberately excised portions of published cables to hide evidence of corruption.

A year ago, on January 25, 2010, the US Embassy in Astana, Kazakhstan sent out the secret cable ASTANA 000072, entitled KAZAKHSTAN: MONEY AND POWER. The cable chronicled the US Ambassador’s private dinner with a senior Kazakh government official named Maksat Idenov. At the time, Idenov headed the Kazakh state oil and gas company and represented the state in its dealings with foreign oil companies, including British Gas and ENI. A redacted version of the cable has been published, and so we have been given the rare privilege of viewing The Guardian’s editing process in action. It looks like nothing so much as political self-censorship.

Here is the relevant portion of the Astana cable; the words removed by The Guardian are printed in bold:

“… market economy means capitalism, which means big money, which means large bribes for the best connected.”

Why does The Guardian wish to conceal evidence of corruption in Kazakhstan? Are there Blairites ensconced in The Guardian’s editing room?
—————————————————————
Indicting the Messanger
BBC Joins Smear Campaign Against Assange and Wikileaks
By ISRAEL SHAMIR
The campaign by the establishment press against Julian Assange is intensifying. CBS’s 60 Minutes tried to trash him last Sunday, but Assange left CBS’ interviewer, Steve Kroft, floundering. Last Sunday also saw New York Times editor Bill Keller consume several thousand words in the NYT’s Magazine abusing Assange with disgraceful lack of scruple, Assange being a man who gave the New York Times some actual news scoops, instead of its regular staple of gastroporn from Sam Sifton. Here Israel Shamir reports, with some personal involvement, on the impending slurring of Assange on the BBC, and the attacks on him in The Guardian. AC/JSC
Moscow
I picked up the phone on the third ring, and a melodious British voice informed me that the BBC wanted to include me in its Panorama program. The BBC wanted to hear my views on the world, and was especially interested in Wikileaks. Oh what a glorious moment! I felt myself puff with pride. There is something about “the Beeb” that makes my heart flutter! I have always been partial to their style, and I considered it an honour to have the BBC listed on my CV, even though it was over thirty years ago. When I worked in Bush House on the Strand, the BBC’s Panorama was one of the best investigative programs anywhere – and suddenly here they are, soliciting my comments! Eager to build a relationship of trust, I answered all their preparatory questions with an unvarnished honesty. I thought I had done well; they offered to fly me to London, or if that were inconvenient they would fly out and speak to me in Moscow – civil chaps, aren’t they?
Looking back, the signs of danger were easy to see. They were producing a program about Wikileaks, but they had no plans to interview Julian Assange. Perhaps he is too busy?

avatar singh

It is in this context that the present review of the Quigley book is written. For what Professor Quigley recounts, with impeccable documentation, is a more than 100-year assault upon the American Constitutional republic by a conspiracy of leading British imperialists, who saw the survival of the British Empire in apocalyptic terms: Either the United States would be coopted back under London domination, or the Empire would crumble. Based on this assessment, a tight-knit group of leading British oligarchs launched a series of projects, aimed at recasting the British Empire as a "Commonwealth of Nations" and drawing the United States, forever, back into the fold.

avatar singh

Iso what is lkiberala nd democracy about the west the most evil people of any hiuman history who have been looting through cheating and not through valour ,mind you, the rest of the world..

John_Muhammad

I have heard over the years that America is the bastion of peace and goodwill in the world, standing up for the little man and for truth and justice and fair dealings.

I have also heard of Israel referred to as a landlocked American aircraft carrier, in a position to project military power into the Middle East anywhere, any time.

If the first is true, why do we NEED a 'landlocked aircraft carrier' at all? If we're dealing fairly and honestly, in good faith, with the entire Middle East, there should be no need to project any sort of power into the region.

When one goes courting new friends, one takes perhaps a small gift. One does NOT take a small gift and two or three tough guys armed to the teeth in case the object of your desire rebuffs your overtures. If Neighbor X doesn't want to join in your party, you don't beat him over the head and break into his house and rifle through his stuff to convince him that your party is the best- and you don't start dropping bombs.

The moral of the story is: Israel is no longer an asset we need, or should even want. What we need now in the Middle East are more hand shakes and less hand grenades. If we drop the slavish devotion to Israel, we shed a huge political and moral burden we've been saddled with for decades, and in doing so we go a long way to repair the damage we've done. The other part we need to do is to start dealing squarely and honestly with everyone in the Middle East, without favoritism or prejudice. We want markets for our products and services, we have a potentially huge market in Arab nations, and all that's standing in our way is our mindless support for an increasingly apartheid Israel and our own fears and prejudices of the Islamic world.

Ira7Epstein

How is this for extremism? Israel firster Eric Cantor recently stated that there will be no federal aid to the tornado victims of Joplin Missouri unless offsetting budget cuts are made elsewhere. When it came time to vote on aid to Israel no such mention was made on the need for offsetting budget cuts. I personally think the federal government should not be in the business of aiding tornado victims in Joplin Missouri or anywhere else. The position of Cantor, however, is a total disgrace. Unconditional aid to Israel. Aid to to tornado victims in Joplin Missouri only if offsetting cuts are made elsewhere in the budget. If this is not a classic example of putting Israel first then I do not know what is.

Silas1898

Aiding victims of natural disasters is precisely what the federal government is for. The combined strength of the entire nation used to help a damaged area that does not have enough resources of its own to manage the problem. Coastal hurricanes, midwestern tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc. The gold plated military should also be used in these situations. Otherwise, we just have 50 (or more) relatively weak little fiefdoms.

"…to promote the general welfare…" etc. is what the constitution is all about.

And yes; screw Israel. We need to ditch that parasite.

Ira7Epstein

To say the federal government should not aid the tornado victims of Joplin is not the samething as saying tornado victims in Joplin should recieve no aid. There were also a series of devastatinng tornados in Tuscaloosa Alabama that left hundreds of people dead and many times more homeless. Alabama was besieged with so many volunteers ready to help that they actually had to send some of them home. The generous spirit of the American people would do more to help the poor people of Joplin than the federal government could ever hope to do. Also, the general welfare clause of the constitution is not an open ended invitation to do good. If it where, then there is nothing the federal government could not do so long as they claimed it was to promote the general welfare. It is simply not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government to aid victims of natural disasters. The same goes for handing out billions of dollars to foriegn governments. I mean all foriegn governments, not just Israel.

anti_republocrat

It is a massive liability to the people of the United States, but it is a tremendous boon to the MIC. War and instability are in the interest of the MIC, and Israel provides them abundantly. Few make that choice consciously, but nevertheless, the choice is made. That's also why we remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, why we attack Pakistan with drones, why we bomb Libya long after they no longer have an airforce to fly in the "no fly" zone.

Yes. Antiwar has consistently criticized the Israel lobby with at least one exception: when the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC, ADL, AJC etc.) has worked with Turkey to deny the Armenian genocide and defeat Armenian genocide resolutions in Congress, Antiwar has had nothing whatsoever to say about that glaring hypocrisy.

Perhaps Antiwar is not anti-semitic as some claim. Rather, Antiwar may be anti-Christian (Armenians are Christians). Then again, perhaps Antiwar is just inconsistent, and has an agenda that it has never told its readers about. Where does Antiwar get its money (and I don't mean those who give $10)? What is the agenda of its major donors? Ha, no one ever asks!

Who's the victim you are talking about? Because I think we the American people are all victimized when our Congress has no scruple, no bean-counting scruple, about its sacred cows. Israel isn't the only one, but it is interesting that you try to get sympathy for one victim but not all victims. Are some victims more equal than others? If you say so, it must be because you have a personal interest at stake. Well, go ahead. You've got yours, I have mine. They might not be the same. At the moment, I am thinking about my own posterity, living on in this country, not some other. I am hoping they have a decent place to live.

See my extended comment linked below. The Israelis are the victims in this situation. The Palestinians are also victims, but, in the big picture, not of the Israelis. I am not denying that individual Palestinians have not been mistreated by Israelis. The reverse is also clearly true. I am talking about the essence of the situation. Read the comment, and if you need more, read my blog and track back on posts on Israel. The history is very relevant.

In terms of our Congress and Israel; of course there is a lot of political posturing, its not pretty, but its also not that relevant. Subsidizing Israel? I am against the subsidizing of any foreign government using taxpayer money. So if we are making a list of subsidies to cut my preferred situation is to cut them all. But if we are talking about piecemeal reforms, I would not start with Israel – why start there, with the one society that shares "our" values (I refer to the rule of law and liberal-democracy as generally understood)? I would probably start with the billions of dollars we give to the United Nations, much of which goes to subsidize dictators or terrorists. What about Pakistan? Iraq? Afghanistan? Egypt? …

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].